DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITY of lanthanum is 7/2, hence the nuclear magnetic moment as determined by this analysis is 2.5 nuclear magnetons. This is in fair agreement with the value 2.8 nuclear magnetons deter- mined from La III hyperfine structures by the writer and N.S. Grace? *M-F, Crawford and N, S. Grace, Phys, Rev. 47, $36 as) m ‘This investigation was carried out under the supervision of Professor G. Breit, and I wish to thank him for the invaluable advice and assis- tance so freely given. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the award of a Fellowship by the Royal Society of Canada, and to thank the University of Wisconsin and the Department of Physics for the privilege of working here. vouume 47 Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? A. Ensteix, B. Ponousky AND N. Rose, Institue for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey (Received March 25, 1935) In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality. A sufficient condition for the reality ofa physical quantity is the possiblity of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system. In ‘quantum mechanics in the cate of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of ‘one precludes the knowledge ofthe other. Then either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in NY serious consideration of a physical theory must take into account the dis- tinction between the objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates. These concepts are intended to correspond with the objective reality, and by means of these concepts we picture this reality to ourselves. In attempting to judge the success of a physical theory, we may ask ourselves two ques- tions: (1) “Is the theory correct?” and (2) “Is the description given by the theory complete?” It is only in the case in which positive answers ‘may be given to both of these questions, that the concepts of the theory may be said to be satis- factory. The correctness of the theory is judged by the degree of agreement between the con- clusions of the theory and human experience. This experience, which alone enables us to make inferences about reality, in physics takes the form of experiment and measurement. It is the second question that we wish to consider here, as, to quantum mechai ‘quantum mechanics is not complete or (2) these wo ‘quantities cannot have simultaneous realty, Consideration of the problem of making predictions concerning a system ‘on the bass of measurements made on another system that hha previously interacted with i leads to the result that i (1) is false then (2) is also false. One is thus led to conclude that he description of reality as given by a wave function ja not complete, Whatever the meaning assigned to the term complete, the following requirement for a com- plete theory seems to be a necessary one: every clement of the physical reality must have a counter. part in the physical theory. We shall call this the condition of completeness. The second question thus easily answered, as soon as we are able to decide what are the elements of the physical reality, The elements of the physical reality cannot be determined by a priori philosophical con- siderations, but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements. A comprehensive definition of reality is, however, ‘unnecessary for our purpose. We shall be satisfied ‘with the following criterion, which we regard as reasonable. If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (ée., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical ‘quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity. It seems to us that this criterion, while far from exhausting all possible ways of recoghizing a physical reality, at least provides us with one78 EINSTEIN, such way, whenever the conditions set down it occur. Regarded not as a necessary, but merely as a sufficient, condition of reality, this criterion is in agreement with classical as well as quantum-mechanical ideas of re To illustrate the ideas involved let us consider the quantum-mechanical description of the behavior of a particle having a single degree of freedom. The fundamental concept of the theory is the concept of siate, which is supposed to be completely characterized by the wave function ¥, which is a function of the variables chosen to describe the particle's behavior. Corresponding to each physically observable quantity A there is an operator, which may be designated by the same letter. If vis an eigenfunction of the operator A, that is, if a) where a is a number, then the physical quantity A has with certainty the value a whenever the particle is in the state given by ¥. In accordance with our criterion of reality, for a particle in the state given by ¥ for which Eq. (1) holds, there isan element of physical reality corresponding to the physical quantity A. Let, for example, ¥ V=Ay=ay, cteitbons, @ where i is Planck's constant, py is some constant number, and x the independent variable. Since the operator corresponding to the momentum of the particle is p= (h/2xi)0/ax, @) we obtain Vapi=(i/2riay/ax=pu. A) ‘Thus, in the state given by Eq. (2), the momen- ‘tum has certainly the value fo It thus has meaning to say that the momentum of the par- ticle in the state given by Eq. (2) is real On the other hand if Eq. (1) does not hold, ‘we can no longer speak of the physical quantity A having a particular value. This is the ease, for example, with the coordinate of the particle, The operator corresponding to it, say g, is the operator cof multiplication by the independent variable. Thus, ab=nyray. © PODOLSKY AND ROSEN In accordance with quantum mechanies we can only say that the relative probability that a measurement of the coordinate will give a result, lying between a and 6 is Jie fe Since this probability is independent of a, but depends only upon the difference 6—a, we see that all values of the coordinate are equally probable, A definite value of the coordinate, for a par- ticle in the state given by Eq, (2), is thus not predictable, but may be obtained only by a direct measurement. Such a measurement how- ever disturbs the particle and thus alters its state. After the coordinate is determined, the particle will no longer be in the state given by Eq. (2). The usual conclusion from this in quantum mechanics is that when the momentum of a particle is known, its coordinate has no physical reality More generally, itis shown in quantum me- chanies that, if the operators corresponding to two physical quantities, say A and B, do not commute, that is, if ABZBA, then the precise knowledge of one of them precludes such a knowledge of the other. Furthermore, any attempt to determine the latter experimentally will alter the state of the system in such a way as to destroy the knowledge of the first From this follows that either (1) the quantum- mechanical description of realty given by the wave Junction is not complete or (2) wien the operators Corresponding to two physical quantities donot commute the two quantities cannot have simul- taneous reality. For if both of them had simul- taneous reality—and thus definite values—these ‘values would enter into the complete description, according to the condition of completeness. If then the wave function provided such a complete description of reality, it would contain these values; these would then be predictable. This not being the case, we are left with the alter- natives stated. Tn quantum mechanics it is usually assumed that the wave function does contain a complete description of the physical reality of the system in the state to which it corresponds. At first PCa, b) 6)DESCRIPTION OF sight this assumption is entirely reasonable, for the information obtainable from a wave function seems to correspond exactly to what can be measured without altering the state of the system. We shall show, however, that this as- sumption, together with the criterion of reality given above, leads to a contradiction, 2 For this purpose let us suppose that we have two systems, I and II, which we permit to inter~ act from the time 1=0 to 1=T, after which time we suppose that there is no longer any interaction, between the two parts. We suppose further that the states of the two systems before 1=0 were known. We can then calculate with the help of Schrdinger’s equation the state of the combined system I+IT at any subsequent time; in par- ticular, for any £>T. Let us designate the cor- responding wave function by ¥. We cannot, however, calculate the state in which either one of the two systems is left after the interaction. This, according to quantum mechanies, can be done only with the help of further measurements, by a process known as the reduction of the wave packet. Let us consider the essentials of this process. Let a1, as, as, +++ be the eigenvalues of some physical quantity A pertaining to system I and s(t), wales), tala), the corresponding. eigenfunctions, where x stands for the variables, used to describe the first system. Then ¥, con- sidered as a function of x1, can be expressed as vee, = E vente), where #2 stands for the variables use to deseribe the second system. Here Y4(xs) are to be regarded merely as the coefficients of the expansion of ¥ into a series of orthogonal functions u(x) Suppose now that the quantity A is measured and itis found that it has the value a Iti then concluded that after the measurement the frst system is left in the state given by the wave function us(xi), and that the second system is left in the state given by the wave function Ya(e2). This is the process of reduction of the wave packet; the wave packet given by the PHYSICAL REALITY 79 infinite series (7) is reduced to a single term Yalas)uele) The set of functions us(xi) is determined by the choice of the physical quantity A. If, instead of this, we had chosen another quantity, say B, having the eigenvalues by, bs, bs, «++ and eigen- Functions wu(2), ex(xi), tx(ei), “++ we should have obtained, instead of Eq. (7), the expansion wien) =¥ eleaoed, ® where g's are the new coefficients. If now the ‘quantity B is measured and is found to have the value b,, we conclude that after the measurement the first system is left in the state given by #,(x3) and the second system is left in the state given by ela). We see therefore that, as a consequence of two different measurements performed upon the first system, the second system may be left in states with two different wave functions. On the other hand, since at the time of measurement the two systems no longer interact, no real change can take place in the second system in consequence of anything that may be done to the frst system. This is, of course, merely a statement of what is meant by the absence of an interaction between the two systems. Thus, itis possible to assign two different wave functions (in our example yx and 7) to the same reality (the second system after the interaction with the first). Now, it may happen that the two wave fune- tions, Ys and ¢,, are eigenfunctions of two non- commuting operators corresponding to some physical quantities P and Q, respectively. That this may actually be the ease can best be shown by an example. Let us suppose that the two systems are two particles, and that Ve, m2) Sf etninincremrdp, (9) where xy is some constant. Let A be the momen- tum of the first particle; then, as we have seen in Eq. (4), its eigenfunctions will be u(x) =etrisden (10) corresponding to the eigenvalue p. Since we have here the case of a continuous spectrum, Eq. (7) will now be written780 Yen 22) = J eoteaustendp, (uy where ol) (2) This Y» however is the eigenfunction of the operator P=(h/2x)a/ax (13) corresponding to the eigenvalue —p of the ‘momentum of the second particle. On the other hand, if B is the coordinate of the first particle, it has for eigenfunctions ven) = (1-2), co) corresponding to the eigenvalue x, where i(e1—x) is the well-known Dirac delta-function. Eq, (8) in this case becomes Os a) = f ex(usyoaleidx, (15) where laa f° eonmienntandp hi(e— artes). (16) This ge, however, is the eigenfunction of the operator Q=n an corresponding to the eigenvalue x+y of the coordinate of the second particle. Since PQ-QP=h/2ni, (18) we have shown that it is in general possible for Ya and ¢, to be eigenfunctions of two noncom- muting operators, corresponding to physical quantities. Returning now to the general case contem- plated in Eqs. (7) and (8), we assume that yx and ¢, are indeed eigenfunctions of some non- commuting operators P and Q, corresponding to the eigenvalues py and q,, respectively. Thus, by measuring either A or B we are in a position to predict with certainty, and without in any way EINSTEIN, PODOLSKY AND ROSEN disturbing the second system, either the value of the quantity P (that is px) or the value of the quantity Q (that is q,). In accordance with our criterion of reality, in the first case we must consider the quantity P as being an element of reality, in the second case the quantity Q is an element of reality. But, as we have seen, both wave functions ¥» and, belong to the same reality. Previously we proved that either (1) the quantum-mechanical description of reality given by the wave function is not complete or (2) when the operators corresponding to two physical quantities donot commute the two quantities cannot have simultaneous reality. Starting then with the assumption that the wave function does give a complete description of the physical reality, we arrived at the conclusion that two physical quantities, with noncommuting oper- ators, can have simultaneous reality. Thus the negation of (1) leads to the negation of the only other alternative (2). We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical deserip- tion of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete. One could object to this conclusion on the grounds that our criterion of reality is not suf- ficiently restrictive. Indeed, one would not arrive at our conclusion if one insisted that two or more physical quantities can be regarded as simul- taneous elements of reality only when they can be simultaneously measured or predicted. On this point of view, since either one or the other, but not both simultaneously, of the quantities P and Q can be predicted, they are not simultane- ously real. This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of measurement carried out on the first system, which does. not disturb the second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permi this. While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.